A picture speaks a thousand words...

Use a different prop that one is hosed

What product is this anyway?(hope it's not lurking in my "not installed yet" folder)

A combination of all 3:

1. No 3D app likes long thin triangles.
2. The UVmap streching is bad => This is the problem you see
3. Certainly ook for unwelded parts.

Yeah, I think this comes from some automatic 2D to 3D app. => Photo to 3D.
I still have to see the first one that :

• Delivers a good mesh.
• Does a good UV map, and does not create a gazilion material zones. LOL.
• Welds all its parts as it should.

Quote - Use a different prop that one is hosed
What product is this anyway?(hope it's not lurking in my "not installed yet" folder)

It's an oldie, 'A Thousand and Two Nights' (Redhouse Studios) from DAZ. It's still in their store.

Quote - A combination of all 3:

1. No 3D app likes long thin triangles.
2. The UVmap streching is bad => This is the problem you see
3. Certainly ook for unwelded parts.

Hmmm... just looked at the page in the DAZ store. If it was the UV mapping I'd expect to see it on the 'Poser render' promo, but that promo looks fine?

Try to change texture filter quality to Crisp

There are a number of old sets at DAZ that are like this.  That is the type of mangled meshes you often get from CAD programs.

Just tried that, but it doesn't make any difference (see attached - changed diffuse colour too to double-check I was rendering what I'd changed!)

Quote - There are a number of old sets at DAZ that are like this.  That is the type of mangled meshes you often get from CAD programs.

I think I've noticed this sort of thing once or twice before, but it never really bothered me till now.

Just imported the mesh into Blender, selected one vertex from the troublesome wall, and then selected all linked vertices and hid everything else. Looks okay to me (if a mesh with triangles like this can be said to be 'okay' where Poser's concerned!  ;o). There's no duplicate vertices either in this bit of wall.

None of the suggestions so far seems to be the cause of the problem in this particular case, except perhaps Poser's dislike for long thin triangles.

The only answer to the "How do I get round it?" question that I can see after all that is to use a bit of focus blur.

Any other thoughts/ideas?

     Triangulation to find bearing and range works well if the triangle is proportioned reasonably close to equilateral, but if the two ranging stations are close together and the target aircraft is far away -forming a long thin "needle" triangle- then even small rounding errors in angular calculation lead to a sizeble error in range estimation.  The same phenomenon occurs with rendering meshes with needle triangles.

     The shape of the doorway is doable, but it would have been better to connect the circular part of the doorway with radial edges, rather than gather all of them at the corners (which also creates a "pole", a point where multiple edges meet).

In Blender, load the object file
Ctrl A to select all on the wall
Goto the uvmap with the texture loaded
Click UV's, "Minimize strech"

What happens?

     I'd be fascinated if that solved the problem.  The wall is flat, and mapped planar;  it doesn't get any flatter (in UV terms) than that.  The problem occurs when a render engine must assign a pixel of texture image to a pixel of render image.  That is calculated relative to the mesh polygons, as they are viewed in perspective of the camera, and "needle"-shaped  triangles exacerbate rounding errors.

To handle extreme shaped polys like in this case, you need extreme render settings as well. Try this:

 - in render settings / manual settings, set Min Shading Rate to something very small. At most 0.1 but 0.01 might even be better.
Why: Firefly turns each poly into subpolys, and assigns colors and displacements etc to each of them, based on the underlying texture maps etc. The size of each subpoly is such that each covers at least a ... portion of a single pixel in your render. So when ... is a small value you'll get a lot of subpolys. The other way around: when you want such a small triangle split up well, and have a busy texture like you have assigned properly, you need a lot of such subpolys. So, how so set that ... value? Simple: that's min Shading Rate.
Your Auto-Settings in the middle set MSR to 1.0, that's 1 subpoly per render pixel. You need 10 to 100, so 0.1 to 0.01 are the preferred values.

 - set pixel samples to at least 3 (at most 10).
Why: both are related: Min Shading Rate should be slightly smaller than 1/ (Pixel Samples)^2 so PS = 3 makes MSR < 1/(33) = 0.11 while PS=10 makes MSR< 1/(1010) = 0.01

 - set post filter size to 3, and filter type to sinc.
Why: 1 means NO filter, 4 is to extreme, 2 is soft (female skin), 3 is hard (male skin, wall structure, ...) and sinc is the best balanced of all.

I don't know of it really helps, but that would be my first approach. I'd like to know the effect.

Thanks for the latest replies. It's nearly midnight here and my brain's going into shutdown, so I'm going to call it a night - let my subconcious work on what I've read. I may be back here tomorrow, or Monday if take a weekend break. Thanks again to everybody who's posted to this thread.

P.S.Avoiding long thin triangles in my meshes was a piece of advice I was given when I started making my own models, but I just realized that I've never really understood why they're to be avoided. The triangulation analogy seems to be part of the answer, but prompts even more questions...  :)

edit: that would bee smoothing on :D got confused during testing

Bill

Oooh, that looks good, Willb53!    A tip 'o the hat to ye, sir.

:D rendered with smoothing on, of course that is a problem too.  Some venders, even now, put out figures that will not render properly with smoothing on.  I have a python script to toggle all smoothing on a figure, and then turn on selected ones by hand, which is what I did on 1002

bill

This little problem won't stay out of my head, so I'm back already. Tried the easiest thing first, especially since Bill's screenshot showed that it worked for him!

But very strange - it doesn't work for me. Tried Final (shown) and Draft auto render settings. (Also tried with smooth polys off, both draft and final quality - same problem).

Bill - which Poser version/render settings did you use for your screenshot?

(attached image is a composite of preview pane with Back_Arch_1 selected overlaid with an area render of part of Back_Arch_1 at auto/Final quality)

Next step - I'll try aRtBee's render settings...

I use PP2014 SR 4

Smooth poly must be on in render settings for the smooth poly on the part to work

Looking at 1002, it comes with the object parts set to smooth, so only should have to use it in render settings. 

I used shading rate of 1.0 on that render, 3 samples, sinc at 2

as a test you should be able to just load 1002, set your camera, and render with smoothing on in render settings.

The pool has some long tris so it will distort with smoothing on

Bill

Ah! I misunderstood. (I should have had my morning wake-up coffee before starting on this again!) I have Smooth Poly's OFF in render settings because it screws up other stuff I want to put in the scene...  :oS

Incidentally, Poser 6 doesn't have this problem (although I had to lower bucket/max texture size for it to render at final quality)

Okay that seems to do it - as a quick test just 1002 and a single infinite light in the scene, auto/Final with Smooth polys. Rerendering with aRtBee's settings now...

Next (and hopefully last) check - I'll try these settings on my initial scene...

aRtBee's settings show a distinct improvement, but there's still blurring. So I think smooth polys is also required.

And if smooth polys screws up other stuff in the scene then maybe composite two renders, one with smooth polys on, one with smooth polys off? Or apply some postwork focus blur to hide the problem! ;o)

any part that explodes due to smoothing, select that part and turn smoothing off for only that part :D

Bill

Quote - any part that explodes due to smoothing, select that part and turn smoothing off for only that part :D Bill

Quite often I miss things that are really obvious...  ;o)

Hopefully I've done the same for what follows...

The back wall (pink) seems fine, but the back arch (green) still has problems and they both have the same material settings I think, except the texture image - details in next post.

Hopefully it's just a case of 'can't see for looking'... ?

D'OH! It's the texture filtering - pink is 'None', green is 'Quality'.

So texture filtering 'Quality' is causing it to mess up?!?!

Puzzled

I disabled AO and the problem vanished (attached image). So I think I need to play with my AO settings.